Genesis 1:16 and its added words.

[37818]

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

The added words are by the translators, not being in the Hebrew text.

The NRSV - "God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars."

 

[InTheLight]

Assuming those two words are additions...

Do you think the addition of those two words alters the meaning of the text? If so, how?

 

[37818]

Assuming those two words are additions...

Do you think the addition of those two words alters the meaning of the text? If so, how?

YEC actually think God made the stars on the fourth day. The text only says God made two lights on the fourth day. Now we know light of those lights are from the Sun and Moon. How God made the Sun and Moon those lights on that fourth day is not explained, only that He made that so on that day in those 6 days.

We also know light from stars take time to reach earth. From the farthest known galaxies billions of years.

 

[rlvaughn]

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

The added words are by the translators, not being in the Hebrew text.

The NRSV - "God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars."

Using the NRSV text you are using, here is the entire immediate context:

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

In verse sixteen, what part of speech is "the stars" and how does it fit into the structure of the entire sentence that constitutes verse sixteen? For example, stars is a noun. Is it a subject of the sentence, an object; why would it not be the object of "God made..."? I would disagree that the text only says "God made two lights on the fourth day." It says that God made the two great lights and the stars. The text should rule, not views of young earth creation or old earth creation, or whatever is your point.

 

[Reformed1689]

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

The added words are by the translators, not being in the Hebrew text.

The NRSV - "God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars."

Clearly you don't understand basic grammar. Let's take out the clause describing the two lights and maybe you will see it better.

"God made the two great lights...and the stars"

He made sun, moon, AND STARS on the fourth day. Period.

 

[Reformed1689]

We also know light from stars take time to reach earth. From the farthest known galaxies billions of years.

Which isn't a problem for YEC. The Universe was created with the appearance of age. In other words, God created a mature creation. Or maybe you believe Adam and Eve were little babies crawling around and somehow survived?

 

[InTheLight]

YEC actually think God made the stars on the fourth day. The text only says God made two lights on the fourth day. Now we know light of those lights are from the Sun and Moon.

The Bible quite clearly says the "the stars also" in verse 16. Furthermore, each day is clearly delineated from the previous day. Verses 14 through 19 describe what was created on the fourth day. God made the sun and the moon on the fourth day, and "the stars also".

If the stars weren't created on Day 4, what day were they created on?

 

[Reformed1689]

The Bible quite clearly says the "the stars also" in verse 16. Furthermore, each day is clearly delineated from the previous day. Verses 14 through 19 describe what was created on the fourth day. God made the sun and the moon on the fourth day, and "the stars also".

If the stars weren't created on Day 4, what day were they created on?

It's a mystery

 

[InTheLight]

It's a mystery

#6 !!

 

[Reformed1689]

#6 !!

Oh good grief.

 

[37818]

Using the NRSV text you are using, here is the entire immediate context:

In verse sixteen, what part of speech is "the stars" and how does it fit into the structure of the entire sentence that constitutes verse sixteen? For example, stars is a noun. Is it a subject of the sentence, an object; why would it not be the object of "God made..."? I would disagree that the text only says "God made two lights on the fourth day." It says that God made the two great lights and the stars. The text should rule, not views of young earth creation or old earth creation, or whatever is your point.

The NRSV did not add the words "he made" as is done in most translations of Genesis 1:16. And I referenced it for no other reason. The RSV adds the words. The KJV, ASV, NASB and the NKJV add the words in italics letting the reader know those words are an interpertation that God made the stars on the fourth day. Which I find on the face of it untenable. Since stars are light years away in distance much greater than a mere 6,000 years or so. Even suppoosing the 6 days took place some 10,000 years ago does not work. I favor a literal reading of the text myself and hold to an old universe.

 

[37818]

The Bible quite clearly says the "the stars also" in verse 16. Furthermore, each day is clearly delineated from the previous day. Verses 14 through 19 describe what was created on the fourth day. God made the sun and the moon on the fourth day, and "the stars also".

If the stars weren't created on Day 4, what day were they created on?

In the beginning Gensis 1:1. The Sun became the star that it is on the 1st day. And the solar blast from that event taking 4 days to blow the debris from around the earth to allow the Son and Moon to appear as distinct lights in the sky. The Moon being brigher than the night sky and the stars in it.

 

[Reynolds]

In the beginning Gensis 1:1. The Sun became the star that it is on the 1st day. And the solar blast from that event taking 4 days to blow the debris from around the earth to allow the Son and Moon to appear as distinct lights in the sky. The Moon being brigher than the night sky and the stars in it.

Serious or failed sarcasm?

 

[Van]

Yes, "He made" has been added for clarity, but is not found in the text. However "made" can have more than one or two objects, and so God also made the stars is what the grammar says.

Young Earth folks can say God created the stars to govern the night, thus their light was visible on day 4. It is just another "apparent history" fig leaf used to reconcile modern science with scripture.

My difficulty with the "light in transit" solution is why was the light which arrived 6 thousand years later, created to show a supernova that occurred perhaps 165,000 years ago. The creation of "apparent history" solves all the problems, but that does not mean it is truth, only convenient.

 

[rlvaughn]

I favor a literal reading of the text myself...

A literal or plain reading of the text says that God made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. Much of the rest of things that have been discussed here are attempts to reconcile the text with one view or another from science.

 

[Reformed1689]

I favor a literal reading of the text

This is simply not true. You read into the text something that is not there. Here is what the text (I'll use the NRSV since that is what you like) says minus the descriptive clause.

"God made the two great lights...and the stars"

Now, I posted that earlier in this thread and you have yet to address it.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes, "He made" has been added for clarity, but is not found in the text. However "made" can have more than one or two objects, and so God also made the stars is what the grammar says.

Young Earth folks can say God created the stars to govern the night, thus their light was visible on day 4. It is just another "apparent history" fig leaf used to reconcile modern science with scripture.

My difficulty with the "light in transit" solution is why was the light which arrived 6 thousand years later, created to show a supernova that occurred perhaps 165,000 years ago. The creation of "apparent history" solves all the problems, but that does not mean it is truth, only convenient.

Were Adam and Eve crawling around as babies?

 

[Van]

Were Adam and Eve crawling around as babies?

What does scripture say? Please stop with the off topic subject change posts.

 

[InTheLight]

Were Adam and Eve crawling around as babies?

Probably not. But the Bible doesn't say how old they were. I'm going to guess late teenagers.

How old do you think they were?

 

[rlvaughn]

Were Adam and Eve crawling around as babies?

What does scripture say? Please stop with the off topic subject change posts.

David can speak for himself, but as for me this seems to be a reply “on topic” to the subject of “apparent history” which you mentioned. On the day they were created they were created in maturity, not infancy. Being adults, they would have seemed to have had an “apparent age” and an “apparent history,” though they had none (history) and were one day old in age (literally). At least that’s my grasp of his point.